Page 42 - TPA - A Peace Officer's Guide to Texas Law 2015

Appellant refused to comply with the officers request to show both of his hands, and he did so in a
suspicious manner.

When coupled with the specific anonymous tip that appellant was selling crack from that van, the
totality of circumstances established reasonable suspicion to briefly detain and investigate the officers
suspicions.

The post-frisk detention was not unreasonable, nor was it unnecessarily prolonged. Although the officers
did not find any weapons or contraband during that frisk, the fact that appellant was not carrying a knife or a
firearm did not address their suspicion that he was selling drugs from the van or that more drugs were in the van.
To quickly confirm or dispel that suspicion, Officer Zimpelman called for a K-9 unit to make a walk-around
search of the van. Although the wait for the K-9 unit was only expected to take 15 to 25 minutes, appellant did
not wait at all. He took off running. This two-block flight only increased the officers suspicion that appellant
was engaged in illegal activity. Furthermore, attempted flight constituted its own offense, evading arrest or
detention.

In sum, appellants detention was supported by reasonable suspicion. The officers did not rely solely on
the content of an anonymous tip; other circumstances including the location, the time of night, and appellants
suspicious behavior, combined with the officers corroboration of innocent details of that tip, contributed to their
suspicion. Thus the initial investigatory detention of appellant was lawful, and the officers were diligent in
calling for a K-9 dog to confirm or dispel that original suspicion.

We also agree with the court of appeals that appellant lacked standing to challenge the search of the van,
but for somewhat different reasons that those relied upon by the trial or appellate courts. Although a person
generally has an expectation of privacy in a borrowed vehicle, appellant abandoned this expectation of privacy
by fleeing from the van.

Matthews v. State, No. PD-1341-13, Tex. Ct. Crim. Appeals, June 11, 2014.

ARREST/DETENTION AUTHORITY U.S. BORDER PATROL AGENT. REASONABLE SUSPICION
TO DETAIN.

A jury convicted appellant of the offense of unlawful use of a criminal instrument with the intent to
commit the offense of aggravated kidnapping or aggravated sexual assault and assessed punishment of twenty
years confinement. The jury also found that appellant personally used or exhibited a deadly weapon, specifically
a firearm, during the commission of the offense. On direct appeal, appellant claimed that the trial court erred
when it denied his motions to suppress evidence that was obtained from the initial stop of his vehicle and his
subsequent detention. The court of appeals overruled that claim and ultimately affirmed the judgment of the trial
court. The Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the conviction.

During the evening hours of April 28, 2010, while returning from dinner, a husband, who was employed
as a federal border-patrol agent, and his wife, who was employed by Immigration and Customs Enforcement
(ICE), observed appellant driving slowly and then stopping near the federal facility where the wife worked.
There was testimony that a female agent had recently been followed after she had left the office. In part
because of that recent event, the couple became suspicious of appellant. A cheer, dance, and gymnastics building
was also in the area, and appellant was seen observing some children in the area of that building. As the
vehicles suspicious movements continued, the wife got out of their vehicle, walked to the federal facility, and
sought the assistance of a federal agent who was working late. That agent, Stone, then got into his own vehicle,
activated his emergency lights, and pursued appellants vehicle after it left a nearby parking lot. Appellant
stopped his vehicle when it reached the end of an alley. Stone observed the prongs of a stun gun sticking out of

A Peace Officer’s Guide to Texas Law 35 2015 Edition